User talk:MusicInTheHouse: Difference between revisions
m fixing talk page |
|||
Line 254: | Line 254: | ||
<div class="user-block"> [[File:Stop x nuvola.svg|40px|left]] You have been '''blocked indefinitely''' from editing in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Wikipedia's blocking policy]] for {{#if:[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikipéire|abusing multiple accounts]]|'''[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikipéire|abusing multiple accounts]]'''|repeated [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|abuse of editing privileges]]}}. If you believe this block is unjustified you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|contest this block]] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] first. {{#if:<span style="font-family: Palatino;"> [[User:Icestorm815|<font color="#151B54">'''Icestorm815'''</font>]] • [[User_talk:Icestorm815|<font color="#C16C16">'''Talk'''</font>]]</span> 20:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)|<span style="font-family: Palatino;"> [[User:Icestorm815|<font color="#151B54">'''Icestorm815'''</font>]] • [[User_talk:Icestorm815|<font color="#C16C16">'''Talk'''</font>]]</span> 20:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)|}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block3 -->[[Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages|{{PAGENAME}}]] |
<div class="user-block"> [[File:Stop x nuvola.svg|40px|left]] You have been '''blocked indefinitely''' from editing in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Wikipedia's blocking policy]] for {{#if:[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikipéire|abusing multiple accounts]]|'''[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikipéire|abusing multiple accounts]]'''|repeated [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|abuse of editing privileges]]}}. If you believe this block is unjustified you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|contest this block]] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] first. {{#if:<span style="font-family: Palatino;"> [[User:Icestorm815|<font color="#151B54">'''Icestorm815'''</font>]] • [[User_talk:Icestorm815|<font color="#C16C16">'''Talk'''</font>]]</span> 20:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)|<span style="font-family: Palatino;"> [[User:Icestorm815|<font color="#151B54">'''Icestorm815'''</font>]] • [[User_talk:Icestorm815|<font color="#C16C16">'''Talk'''</font>]]</span> 20:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)|}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block3 -->[[Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages|{{PAGENAME}}]] |
||
{{unblock|I was accused of being this editor before and it was deemed a mistake. The checkuser result is '''Likely'''. How on earth does that justify you to block me? I remember this editor as being from Ireland, I'm an Irish ex-pat living in Madrid. This is all one huge mistake. There is no real evidence to suggest that I am some sockpuppet and I should be unblocked accordingly. This is a really bad block!}} |
Revision as of 21:28, 14 July 2009
Domer48See Domer has been blocked again for asking a question, something to do with RoI talk page. Tfz 21:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Look at this...[1] Vandalism fanatic using the french version on advise how to vandalise and get away with it. i had to tell someone because it may be a problem. --10000 Walls (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
euuserboxHi Music, like your new Irish/EU banner. Don't know what the protocol is re. such things, but would you mind if I adopt it on my own user page? Hope that isn't considered 'forward' of me. Regards. RashersTierney (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
LimerickI don't think the crime section is relevant for a page about Limerick city so please stop accusing me of vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Munsterlove (talk • contribs) 11:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
NI.That NI is a country in the 'county' sense is a whole new one on me, thanks for revert if it kept me out of 'trouble'. Tfz 22:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
You have a reply on my talk page (eom)The Transhumanist 00:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Blocked againI've blocked you for 48h for edit warring on 1973 Mountjoy Prison helicopter escape William M. Connolley (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm bored with your faux-naivity. For the benefit of any innocents watching: MT repeatedly reverted the removal of RoI: [3], [4]. You reverted MT [5] with a dishonest edit summary. Now stop playing silly games William M. Connolley (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
MusicInTheHouse (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I think the unblock was unfair because I didn't break any rules. I did't break 3RR nor was I disruptive in anyway. The admin blocked me for edit warring even though I wasn't reverting any changes of other editors. I think the blocking admin's reasons for blocking me were quite subjective and there is no wiki policy justifying my block. I wish to be unblocked as I am not a disruptive editor and I wish to go back to constructive editing.MITH 00:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Decline reason: There is wikipedia policy justifying your block. WP:3RR states, and I quote "The rule does not entitle editors to revert a page three times each day. Administrators may still block disruptive editors for edit warring who do not violate the rule.". If you wish to be unblocked, you need to indicate that you understand why you were rightly blocked in the first place. See WP:GAB. Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. To while the time...You might gain insights from this as you contemplate your 'rehabilitation'. RashersTierney (talk) 11:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC) MooretwinI went to W Connelley's page to protest your block and discovered that Mooretwin has been blocked for a month. I wonder if you'd support an appeal to reduce his sentence if he promises to stop edit warring? Coming from you is might soften the hearts of the Admin Community (though I wouldn't bet on it). Sarah777 (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Your message on Hackney's talk pageAccording to WP:LEAD "Verifiability. The lead section must conform to verifiability policy, which advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged should be sourced (as should quotations). However, with the exception of quotations, such sourcing does not need to be within the lead section itself': since the lead should summarise the body, there should normally be somewhere in the body where sources for the information can be placed." As the lead summarises the article, and everything in the article is sourced, it seems as though he objects to you placing {{cn}} tags for information that is already sourced in the article and there is no requirement for it to be sourced in the lead as it isn't a quote, thanks. BigDuncTalk 11:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
SPI casesClerk note: please, before filing cases at SPI, read the instructions carefully. Cases must be filed under the name of the master account, NOT the name of the latest sock. Filing under the sock simply means that clerk time needs to be taken up with fixing the case. Mayalld (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Irish cricketersWhatever about windsurfers, I'd have thought with the resurgence of interest in Irish cricket, notable Irish cricketers deserve at least a mention on the Irish people article. Could you reconsider your edit? RashersTierney (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: Northern Ireland flagWell N.Ireland does use the one I placed and since its linked under Wikipedia to that when you use the flagicon tool. The C of E (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. BigDuncTalk 18:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Your commentsHi MITH, what makes you think that I am taliking about BW in your post here, I think my comment neutral bone in their body would exclude this editor. BigDuncTalk 10:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
IcelandThe Iceland in Ballyfermot did reopen last November. Look at this, this, this and this. Please verify that it has closed before making more edits like that and accusing other users of sockpuppetry. FF3000 (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
"BI"Hey ho... Time to find something better to do, I think... :-} Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Per The Troubles arbitration case, this article is under 1RR probation. Please note that any further reverts will result in a block. I have also informed User:Jonto of this. Thanks, Black Kite 20:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Re:NI flagFrom what I see and as far as I can tell, a football ground in Northern Ireland represents Northern Ireland and since NI national football team use the Ulster Banner as the flag (and is willingly and proudly displayed by NI football fans), I beleave that thats what it should be.
Poll on Ireland (xxx)A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- BigDuncTalk 20:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Poll on Ireland (xxx)A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆ 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Republic of Ireland namingThanks for your comment. Though it appeared to be rude by trying to assert I did not know the difference between Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, the very reason I changed the sovereign state of Ireland's name to the Republic of Ireland on many articles was to disambiguate between the sovereign state Ireland and the island Ireland. Aogouguo (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Here is the account I used to discuss the matter on the Argentina article. Sogosg (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC) British IslesThree editors have been blocked for reverting that phrase on British Isles, I suggest you self-revert before SheffieldSteel wakes up ...--Snowded TALK 04:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted your edit to Argentina. In the first place, your edit summary could best be described as misleading, secondly, the information you removed is correct. They do make those claims, whether they're valid or not. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
OwnershipIt is not about ownership. It is about management. Both Scoláire and Rannṗáirtí have been making edits in their own sandboxes and not in the draft poll. I'm managing the draft poll, based on consensus found on the talk pages. Regarding the text you keep removing, you have not given a reason for its removal. You have simply CLAIMED that there is no consensus to put it there. All of the discussion I have seen shows that there are three people myself included who think it is useful. You do not, but you do not say WHY. You have to argue a case. You can't just be a loose cannon and be bold here. It's not fair to this difficult process for the draft poll to be a free-for-all. This will go out to EVERYBODY in the whole Wikipedia. Let's not make a hames of it. Please agree to allow me to manage this; it is only a few more days before the poll will begin. Thank you for your consideration. -- Evertype·✆ 13:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Ireland / Republic of Ireland CategoriesHi, I thought that we had to wait until WP:IECOLL had decided on an outcome until creating / moving articles and categories relating to Ireland and Republic of Ireland. I see that User:Tim! has been creating various categories like Category:2009 in the Republic of Ireland and using it to replace Category:2009 in Ireland in some articles. Snappy (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Green background is really and truly not working for me anywayPlease change back to the old way. Its so difficult to read the script its hardly worth the effort dropping by here. Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
British and Irish LionsI don't understand the reason for this edit. You mentioned in the edit summary that you reverted because the changes had been added without reason. But your edit just reverts updates made after the last test? You added a "so far" reference, but the series is over. And you removed the fact that Stephen Jones was the top points scorer. How can this be unexplained, surely they are obvious additions? And Martin Corry captained the team in 2005 according to the Wikipedia article? Greenman (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
BlockedSince you have previously been warned per The Troubles Arbitration for edit-warring on Flag of Northern Ireland - here - and have resumed this behaviour, I have blocked you. You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for the reason given above. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite 11:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the previous warning could have been any clearer, personally. It doesn't matter how much time passes between bouts of edit warring. Having said that, I am prepared to unblock you as long as you indicate that there will be no more reverts on this article without going to the talk page. In fact, it might be as well to fully protect the page whilst such a discussion takes place, because sporadic reverting is getting us nowhere. Black Kite 14:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
A Deletion Discussion of an Irish Catholic Categoryis being engaged in at [6]--Epeefleche (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Blocked You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abusing multiple accounts. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Icestorm815 • Talk 20:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
This user is asking that his block be reviewed:
MusicInTheHouse (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I was accused of being this editor before and it was deemed a mistake. The checkuser result is Likely. How on earth does that justify you to block me? I remember this editor as being from Ireland, I'm an Irish ex-pat living in Madrid. This is all one huge mistake. There is no real evidence to suggest that I am some sockpuppet and I should be unblocked accordingly. This is a really bad block!
Notes:
Administrator use only:
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting
| ||||||||||||||||||